TIP TALKS

The Newsletter of the Toxics Information Project (TIP)

AUTUMN 2005

*************************************************************************************************************

WE ARE ALL CANARIES!

In tune with the holiday spirit of love and unity, this issue of TIP TALKS will not have a separate Canary Corner. Instead, I ask you to recognize that the “canaries” among us are not a separate breed – just a bit more sensitive and vulnerable than most. The truth is that we are ALL affected by the chemical stew in which we live, to varying degrees. The important thing is that “canaries” do us a service – by giving a warning which, if heeded, can move us toward creation of a healthier, environmentally sustainable earth.

Liberty Goodwin, TIP Director

*****************************************************************************************************

THANKSGIVING THOUGHTS

The first occasion to arrive with Autumn is Thanksgiving. Though my life and work is often a struggle,

I have much to be thankful for this year. Mostly, it is people. Some have the impression that TIP is a one-woman operation – probably because I am out there so much networking and talking up the cause. But the truth is that some great folks are with me, often in the background, to help make things go. First and foremost, many of you know the wonderful man who is my partner in life and love – my husband, Paul Klinkman. No one but me realizes the extent to which I depend on him to support the work of TIP. He is more than webmaster, Board member, proofreader, layout expert, ardent spokesperson to all and sundry, my knight in techie armor who sweeps to my rescue when computer problems leave me in tears! Paul is the one on whom I rely to understand and encourage when the world seems too resistant to ever change – the ever-present one who “gets it” and shares my dreams and hopes. He is indispensable.

Still, without some other loyal supporters, TIP would indeed be a lonely effort. Each of our other Board members has been active. Kate Lacouture, a landscape architect, has given several well-attended talks as part of our “Less Toxic Landscaping” campaign, and served as a judge for our “Less Toxic Landscaping” Contest. Occupational health nurse Chris Pontus provides invaluable information and advice geared to health professionals. Patrice Pop, a budding animal photographer (TIP sells her beautiful greeting cards at our booth), actually drew on a napkin the boy we added to our LTL Campaign logo (for gender balance). Domenic Bucci, our newest member, began his involvement by obtaining a free bank account and a $100 contribution from Citizens Bank for TIP.

Beyond the Board, there is our Advisory Committee, helping us when questions arise in their area of expertise. One of them, Lynn Tondat Ruggeri, PhD, also gave a talk for us to school professionals, on “The Neurological Effects of Household Chemicals”. Volunteers are essential to TIP’s functioning. Especially faithful and knowledgeable are Cate Wojtowitz and Dori Blacker, who regularly save me from embarrassment by answering gardening questions beyond my NYC born experience. Aimee Reisman and her cat Mugwump helped us twice with appearances on the “RI Soapbox” cable TV Show. Along with Kate, our panel of LTL Contest judges included: Isabel Barten (“The Greenwoman”), Len Harris, Anjali Joshi & Carol Julien (landscape architects), & Kate’s mother Marni, active with the RI Wild Plant Society. Important on two levels are state legislators Sen. Rhoda Perry & Rep. Gordon Fox. Rhoda has long been TIP’s special angel, and Gordon more recently has joined her in submitting legislation and helping us with legislative grant assistance. The Governor’s Commission on Disabilities has recently taken up our cause, a great blessing! Obviously, our members and contributors are a vital source of support without which we could not survive. Then there are the great folks at ALARI (American Lung Association RI), and the Rochambeau Library – favorite sites for events. And behind the scenes, there are so many more – the senders of information and the questioners, seeking to lead more healthy lives.

*************************************************************************************************************GIFT/WISH LIST

My wish for the holidays is to give some simple yet vital gifts –to all with whom I share this small planet. If I had it to bestow, this would be my list:

Really clean air at home, work & school – No asthma attacks, headaches, learning impediments.

The right to go to a doctor, emergency room, hospital, nursing home, or have home health care assistance without risk of serious reactions to toxic chemicals from such caregivers or places.

Being able to go to a store and buy safe, healthy products for personal care, cleaning, clothing, decorating one’s home, free of carcinogens, neurological disrupters, etc.

Affordable food free of pesticides, genetically modified ingredients, antibiotics & hormones.

************************************************************************************************************

MAKING THESE DREAMS COME TRUE

New Year’s is my favorite holiday – because for me it is a time to look back at accomplishments in the year just past – and ahead to set goals for the months to come. I don’t think in terms of solemn resolutions that are hard to keep and scary to contemplate. Instead, the time approaching is in itself a gift – an opportunity to do exciting and fruitful things. The question is, what can I do to move forward toward the wishes in my list? I’m acting on that right now!

TIP’s plans for 2006 have already been blessed by the willingness of many to assist in the work. Alexandra Knott of East Side Eden has agreed to be co-presenter of a TIP workshop on Urban Gardening at the RI Flower & Garden Show. Chip Osborne will be offering a workshop on March 9 on “The Whys & Hows of Natural Turf Management”. Carol Westinghouse of Inform, Inc. will be speaking April 7 at the Rochambeau Library about Green Cleaners for institutional and commercial sites. We are close to finalizing a panel on “Protecting Children from Toxics at School & Play” for April 28 – including two parents from Georgia whose children were sickened by pesticide spraying on the soccer field. Lynn Ruggeri has agreed to again share her expertise on this topic, and we expect at least one more expert and a RI parent to participate. We are thinking of having a special “Trading TIPs “ discussion led by organic gardeners and landscapers in May and will again be active at the RI Sustainable Living Festival in June. The “Less Toxic Landscaping Awards” are a possible repeat event next Fall. We are also planning a forum for health care professionals on (tentative title) “Providing Accessible Health Care for Asthmatics & Others Affected by Household Chemicals”. Finally, we hope to have someone from Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition (MBCC) speak about the Safe Cosmetics Campaign, possibly in Spanish, aided by some TIP materials translated into that language.

***************************************************************************

HAVE HAPPY AND LESS TOXIC HOLIDAYS!

In the rest of this newsletter we have included some tips that might help:

**Avoiding risky beauty care products and fattening chemicals in food.

**Local places to shop for presents that are natural, organic, environmentally friendly.

**Healthy holiday eating, especially for your kids. What should you buy organic, and why?

**The safest options for flame-resistance in that popular gift – pajamas, and links to other

info on flame retardants – what about that Christmas tree?.

AND DON’T FORGET GIFT POSSIBILITIES THAT WOULD SUPPORT TIP’S WORK! Consider giving one of the great books we sell “HOW TO GROW FRESH AIR” 17$, “BUILDING A HEALTHY LAWN”, $13, and “SAFER FOR YOUR BABY”, only $6 - an information packed booklet from Lynn Ruggeri and Laura Costa -useful for holiday shopping - includes listings of companies that offer safer toys and other natural products. (Shipping is extra, but RI Sales Tax is included. Available on our website via credit card as of December 9, or call/write us to order).

OR, GET SOMEONE A SUBSCRIPTION THROUGH TIP TO E/THE ENVIRONMENTMAGAZINE - only $18!

************************************************************************************

BEAUTY & HEALTH FOR THE HOLIDAYS

Hairdressers at Risk of Respiratory Disease

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_28118.html

(*this news item will not be available after 12/16/2005)

By Graciela Flores

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Bleaching agents widely used in hair salons put hair stylists at risk of asthma and inflammation of the eyes, nose and throat, researchers report in the medical journal Chest. "In the last years I have seen several cases of occupational asthma in hairdressers, and this observation has prompted me to start a specific study in this category of workers," Dr. Gianna Moscato, Head of the Allergy and Immunology Unit at the Scientific Institute of Pavia in Italy told Reuters Health. Between 1996 and 2004, Moscato and her colleagues enrolled 47 hairdressers who had been exposed to bleaching agents for an average of about 7 years, and who had come to their institute with complaints of respiratory and skin problems. The researchers performed allergy tests and studied lung function in these patients.

They found that more than half of the patients (about 51 percent) had occupational asthma and that in 87.5 percent of all asthma patients the condition was due to persulfate salts, a type of chemical widely used as a bleaching agent. Of the remaining patients diagnosed with asthma, the condition was associated with exposure to permanent hair dyes in about 8 percent and to latex in about 4 percent. In addition, more than half of the patients diagnosed with asthma (about 54 percent) were also diagnosed with occupational rhinitis -- inflammation of the eyes, nose and throat -- that was due to persulfate salts in 84.5 percent of the cases. Finally, about 36 percent of all hairdressers seen at the institute were diagnosed with occupational dermatitis.

"We have described the largest population of hairdressers with documented occupational asthma and rhinitis published to date," Moscato said. "The agents most frequently involved are persulfates salts, and that besides the well described cutaneous occupational risk, these workers are also at high risk to develop occupational asthma." Moscato and her colleagues are now working to promote preventive programs for hairdressers that will include environmental measures and specific respiratory surveillance programs. SOURCE: Chest, November 2005

******************************************************************************************************************************

CHEMICALS MAKE YOU FAT - THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE

ELIMINATE CHEMICAL CALORIES

https://www.onegrp.com/resources/General/OandNatLivFatArticleOct05.pdf

SOURCE: Organic and Natural Living, Issue Two, October, 2005, published by ONE Group, Organic & Natural Enterprise Group (An Australian company selling organic personal care products) Website: www.onegrp.com

What is the cause of obesity? Why do current estimates suggest that women are gaining weight to the tune of 450g and men 225g each year despite the many diets they undertake? Could it be true that the chemicals in our food, skin care and detergents make us fat?

The foundation for most diets today is based on the work of Drs Johnston and Newsborough of Michigan University who, during the 1930s, developed the theory that if a person consumes fewer calories than the body needs, the body will burn up its fat stores. In her groundbreaking book, The Detox Diet -Eliminate Chemical Calories and Enhance Your Natural Slimming System, Dr Paula Baillie-Hamilton tackles what she believes is the root cause of weight gain. Our own natural weight-control system is being poisoned by the toxic chemicals that we encounter in our everyday lives — this damage makes it increasingly difficult for our bodies to control their own weight, so we end up getting fatter even if we eat less food. This detox diet approach tells us how to avoid the most “fattening” chemicals, or “chemical calories” in our food and around our home. It explains how we can shed our body’s load of chemical calories safely, and rebuild our natural slimming system.

Synthetic chemicals damage our health in two ways. First, by acute “poisoning” through exposure to large quantities, which induce almost immediate and often violent reactions that account for a staggering 220,000 fatalities worldwide every year. The second, more subtle way is by long-term exposure to much lower levels. This is what Dr Baillie-Hamilton explores in her book. “The Detox Diet” links the current fat epidemic to the toxic synthetic chemicals used in agriculture, skin care, cosmetics and household products. Toxic synthetic chemicals are highly fat-soluble and when we are exposed to them the body creates fat to safely store those toxins it cannot process and eliminate safely. Garbamates, a group of insecticides and herbicides used in the growing of food, cosmetic and medicinal ingredients, are also used as growth promoters in battery-farm situations because they slow down the metabolic rate. So, the same synthetic chemicals used on our fruit and vegetables are used to fatten livestock! Carbamates are also used in medicine to promote weight gain in humans.

People are not overweight simply through their own lack of effort, such as exercise. The truth is that the finger of blame must also be pointed at toxic chemicals. It is known that toxic chemicals, even when present in very small amounts, directly damage muscles and disrupt the hormones that control their growth. Catecholamines, a valuable group of slimming hormones, also seem to come under frequent attack by these chemicals, which interferes with the metabolic process and inhibits our body’s own natural slimming systems. Dr Baillie-Hamilton recommends the replacement of our food, skin care, cosmetics and household products that contain toxic synthetic chemicals with organic products, combined with effective detoxification. In addition, her research suggests that the highest levels of “slimming nutrients” are found in organically grown produce.

IN SAME ISSUE: See “Regulations on the Use of Toxins in Cosmetics” - scroll down to P. 10 http://www.onegrp.com/resources/General/NewspaperOct05.pdf

******************************************************************************************

HEALTHY HOLIDAY SHOPPING: LOCAL RETAILERS OFFERING LESS-TOXIC GIFT OPTIONS

******************************************************************************************

ACTION FOR A LESS TOXIC HOLIDAY

As America heads into the busy holiday shopping season, our friends at RIPIRG released their 20th annual toy safety survey this week. While they reported substantial progress after two decades of advocacy on behalf of America's littlest consumers, they still found trouble in toyland this holiday season.

Toxic Trouble in Toyland?

Phthalates are a class of chemicals used to soften otherwise hard PVC plastic used in a range of consumer items, including toys, teethers and other children's products. Numerous scientists have documented the potential health effects of exposure to phthalates in the womb or at crucial stages of childhood development, including reproductive defects, early onset puberty, and even cancer. Given growing consumer concern, many manufacturers claim to have stopped using phthalates in toys and childcare articles. Some manufacturers even have started labeling their products as "phthalate-free." Since parents rely on product labels to inform their purchasing decisions, we decided to put the "phthalate-free" label to the test. We commissioned an independent laboratory to test eight children's toys and teethers - all labeled as "phthalate-free" - for the presence of phthalates. Six of these eight products actually tested positive for phthalates.

Instead of guiding parents, these labels are deceiving parents. We have submitted a petition to the Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Product Safety Commission asking them to take immediate action to ensure that products labeled "phthalate-free" truly are free of toxic chemicals.

Parents and consumers have a right to know accurate information about toxic chemicals in children's products. Please take a moment to tell the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, Deborah Platt Majoras, to investigate manufacturers that may be falsely labeling their products as "phthalate-free." Then ask your family and friends to help by forwarding this information to them.

To take action, click on this link or paste it into your web browser:

http://toysafety.net/toysafety.asp?id=86&id4=ES

STUDY INDICATES ORGANIC FOODS ARE BEST FOR CHILDREN

By Marla Cone, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, September 2, 2005

From: Ag News You Can Use Amigo Cantisano orgamigo@jps.net www.latimes.com/news/local/la-na-organic3sep03,0,178205.story?coll=la-tot-promo&track=morenews

Read the full study at: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/8418/8418.pdf

Switching to organic foods provides children "dramatic and immediate" protection from widely used pesticides that are used on a variety of crops, according to a new study by a team of federally funded scientists. Concentrations of two organophosphate pesticides --malathion and chlorpyrifos -- declined substantially in the bodies of elementary-school age children during a five-day period when organic foods were substituted for conventional foods. The two chemicals are the most commonly used insecticides in U.S. agriculture. More than 2 million pounds were applied to California crops in 2003, according to records of the state Department of Pesticide Regulation. The health effects of exposure to minute amounts of pesticides found in food are largely unknown, especially for children. Some research, however, suggests that the residue may harm the developing nervous system.

For 15 days, a team of environmental health scientists from the University of Washington, Emory University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tested the urine of 23 elementary-school age children in the Seattle area. During the first three days and last seven days, the children ate their normal foods. But during the middle five days, organic items were substituted for most of their diet, including fruits, vegetables, juices and wheat and corn-based processed items such as cereal and pasta.

Average levels of both pesticides in the children "decreased to the non-detect levels immediately after the introduction of organic diets and remained non-detectable until the conventional diets were reintroduced," the researchers reported Thursday in the online version of the scientific journal Environmental Health Perspectives. When they ate organic foods, the children on average had zero malathion detected in their urine, with a high of 7 parts per billion in one child. But when the children returned to eating conventional foods, one child had as much as 263 ppb and the average increased to 1.6 ppb. For chlorpyrifos, the children had less than one part per billion when they ate organic foods, but the average increased five-fold as soon as they returned to their previous diet. The findings suggest that children are exposed to organophosphate chemicals mainly through food, not through spraying in homes or other sources.

In 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned most residential uses of chlorpyrifos but has left most agricultural uses unrestricted. Three other organophosphate pesticides that are not widely used on farms and are more highly restricted by the EPA were undetectable in most of the children, according to the study, directed by Emory University's Dr. Chensheng Lu. "In conclusion," the researchers wrote, "we were able to demonstrate that an organic diet provides a dramatic and immediate protective effect against exposure to organophosphorus pesticides that are commonly used in agricultural production."

Margaret Reeves, a staff scientist at the San Francisco-based Pesticide Action Network North America, said the findings are "not surprising because we know that food is an important source of (organophosphate) exposure. Also, we know that these pesticides don't last very long ... in the body, and you can have a relatively quick response" to a diet change. Pesticide manufacturers say that while low levels of residue are detectable on many products, there is no evidence that children are harmed by them. They say that pesticides, which are the most highly tested and regulated chemicals in the United States, are vital to providing an affordable and plentiful world food supply. But Reeves said the children's study "is a pretty strong argument that (organic food) is a good way to go, if you have access to it and can afford it."

Organic foods can be expensive and sometimes difficult to find. But parents can minimize their children's exposure if they substitute organic products for those that contain the most residue. Experts advise parents to wash produce and peel skins if they buy conventional foods but for foods that cannot be peeled, such as grapes and strawberries, organic may be a wise choice. In the late 1990s, U.S. Department of Agriculture data showed that nearly three-quarters of foods sampled from conventionally grown crops contained pesticide residue, while 23 percent of organic products did. The Consumers Union reported in 2000 that peaches, apples, pears, grapes, green beans, spinach, winter squash, strawberries and cantaloupe had the highest levels of pesticide residues. Those with few residues included bananas, broccoli, canned peaches, canned or frozen peas, canned or frozen corn, milk, orange juice, apple juice and grape juice.

***************************************************************************************

LESS TOXIC FIRE-RESISTANT SLEEPWEAR

From Mothering Magazine: Mindy Pennybacker,
Family Health and Our Environment

http://www.mothering.com/sections/experts/pennybacker-archive.html

What kinds of chemicals are used to make baby clothes flame retardant? Are all sleep clothes treated with these chemicals and how safe are they?

Most sleepwear made from synthetic fiber is polyester and according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), "less than 1% of either polyester or cotton sleepwear garments are treated with flame retardant chemicals." The key word here is "treated," which, in this case, does not mean exactly what one might suppose. Treated or not, most children’s sleep clothes made of synthetic fabrics will contain flame retardant chemicals in one way or another. In some cases, the material is treated after it is woven or after the garment is finished; in other cases, the flame retardant is actually bonded into the composition of the fabric. Therefore, the most chemical-free (as well as comfortable) option is untreated, snug-fitting cotton stretchies. But it’s crucial to note that they must be snug-fitting in order to comply with government safety rules.

Chemicals used on pyjamas or pyjama fabrics include halogenated hydrocarbons (chlorine and bromine), inorganic flame retardants (antimony oxides) and phosphate based compounds, all of which are the basic building blocks of most conventional fire retardants. Like all fabric finishes, fire retardants can offgass into the air children breathe and irritate their skin. For purposes of the CPSC, synthetic materials are either considered to be "inherently" flame resistant or treated with flame retardants. Materials not requiring treatment include most polyesters, modacrylic (Verel, SEF, Kanecaron); matrix (Cordelan); and vinyon (Leavil). However, "inherently" flame resistant polyester textiles are manufactured with built-in fire retardants. This is because the fire retardants can be chemically inserted into the polyester compound, becoming a part of its molecular composition. The enhanced polymers are quite stable, so polyester sleepwear is unlikely to pose a health risk to your child, beyond the reduced breathability of the fabric, which can contribute to overheating and rashes. And one can also consider the negative impact on the environment during its manufacture from petrochemicals.

Materials requiring chemical treatment include nylon, acetate, and triacetate. The CPSC first adopted standards for children’s sleepwear in 1971. The standards stipulated that all sleepwear exposed to a small open flame must self-extinguish. Polyester garments and cotton garments treated with chemical fire retardants were approved, but untreated cotton garments were not. Subsequent data indicated a significant decrease in sleepwear- and-fire related deaths and injuries among children. During the 1980s and 90s, pressure from consumers groups for organic fibers lead to the CPSC’s relaxing the standards of the Flammable Fabrics Act to include cotton garments. However, an important distinction was made with regard to fit.

According to the CPSC, loose-fitting sleepwear made of cotton or cotton blends are associated with 200 burn injuries every year. When the standards changed in 1997, "snug-fitting" untreated cotton sleepwear became a legal alternative for children over 9 months old. The same amendment eliminated all restrictions for infant (0-9 months) sleepwear, since infants are less mobile, and most burn injuries result from children playing with fire. Following the new CPSC standards, all snug-fitting cotton sleepwear is labeled with a hangtag that says "For child’s safety, garment should fit snugly. This garment is not flame resistant. Loose-fitting garment is more likely to catch fire." The permanent label says, "Wear snug-fitting. Not flame resistant."

Flame resistant garments are usually labeled "Flame Resistant." These are expected to have passed the rigorous testing parameters set by the CPSC, which require that the fabric, seams and trim self-extinguish after being exposed to an open flame. The fabric is tested as produced and again after fifty cycles in a washing machine. Failure at any point in the testing is supposed to stop the item from moving forward to production. Garments cannot be retested and must comply with all CPSC standards before going to stores. Most polyesters pass the testing, whereas untreated cotton does not.

The current regulations determine the safety of cotton garments according to a set of measurements for each size group. These measurements are based on testing done to determine the optimum snugness necessary to prevent the garment from being inflammable when exposed to an open flame. The standards are based on studies that showed eliminating the airspace—and therefore the oxygen—between the garment and the child’s skin significantly diminished a cotton garment’s inflammability. (CPSC used dressed mannequins for their testing.) Cotton can be treated with fire retardants, though the strict CPSC standards requiring all cotton garments to be snug-fitting and the negative perception of treated natural fibers do not create a favorable market for such innovation.

Your choices, then, from worst to best are:

1) Nylon or acetate treated with fire retardants,

2) "Inherently" flame resistant polyester with fire retardants built into the polymer or

3) Snug-fitting cotton garments. The healthiest safe choice with the lowest embodied energy and lowest ecological impact would be snug-fitting, organic cotton, long johns or union suit-style pajamas with the "Wear snug-fitting. Not flame resistant" label. These common sense choices conform to the CPSCs standards, give the environment a break and provide your child with safe and comfortable sleepwear. For where to get organic cotton children’s sleepwear and other clothing, go to www.thegreenguide.com and click on "Product Reports" and then "Clothing.

Hairdressers at Risk of Respiratory Disease

HEALTHY HOLIDAY SHOPPING: LOCAL RETAILERS OFFERING LESS-TOXIC GIFT OPTIONS

Most Naturally - Organic Lifestyle Store

Environmentally Friendly Kitchen & Yogawear, Skin Care, Housewares, Jewelry, Glassware, Stationery & Paper, Children’s Books & Toys,

Organic Clothing, Sheets & Towels, Natural Pet Treats and Shampoos, Organic Catnip) Just opened in April 2005, they donate a percentage of all proceeds to local charities.

The Fantastic Umbrella Factory

Check out the Apeiron Institute

Sustainable Rhode Island Directory

http://directory.sustainableri.org/

for more environmentally friendly resources.

STUDY INDICATES ORGANIC FOODS ARE BEST FOR CHILDREN

LESS TOXIC ALTERNATIVES

TIP TALKS Autumn Issue 2005

MEMBERSHIPS/DONATIONS

WELCOME! Ellen Shatter, Mayra Dole